The Discipline Committee of the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants has ordered Raghbir Singh Bharowal to pay two of his former clients a total of $68,875 in restitution and work out with another consultant how much a third is owed. It also fined him $50,000 and ordered Bharowal to pay $63,790 to cover the regulator’s costs for legal expenses, investigation and hearing fees.
“In a case where a member has breached the (college’s code of professional ethics) for matters of competence, mistake or even momentary lapse of judgement, there may be hope for rehabilitation,” said a recent decision from the three-person disciplinary committee panel.
“But in this case, the matter goes beyond the competence of the licensee. (Bharowal’s) conduct speaks to his character. It is unbecoming for a licensee to threaten his clients with immigration consequences for raising concerns about exploitive working conditions. It is unbecoming to fail to give clients alternative options in the face of such exploitation. This conduct suggests Mr. Bharowal was perhaps conflicted by his relationship with their employer and apparently did not give due priority to the interests of his clients.”
But “the most troublesome aspect of Mr. Bharowal’s conduct was his reaction when being investigated by the college,” said the written decision, dated Sept. 27.
“A licensee who alters or fabricates documentation in response to a regulatory body’s investigation is a person who is ungovernable. Such a person should not be allowed to continue to be a member of any professional organization whose members are trusted to act faithfully and in the best interests of their clients and the public.”
The discipline panel found that Bharowal’s “offences were severe in nature and given that there were numerous findings of misconduct against him, general deterrence dictates that (his) membership be revoked permanently.”
Bharowal had offered to pay a penalty of $10,000, costs of $10,000 and to “have a college-appointed mentor give supervision for a period of 12 months at his cost,” according to the decision.
He had also offered to “attend professional ethical conduct training as proposed by the college.”
The immigration consultant was licensed by the college since June of 2017.
“He was the owner and director of Bharowal Immigration and Education Solution Ltd. based in Surrey, B.C.”
The college wanted the discipline panel to ding him for restitution “to ensure that Mr. Bharowal does not benefit from ill-gotten gains. Mr. Bharowal makes no mention or offer of restitution in his submissions on penalty.”
The panel normally orders “restitution in cases where the conduct of the licensee has led to a failure or refusal of an application or where no application has been submitted at all,” said the decision.
“In the present case, the circumstances are somewhat different. All three complainants eventually saw their applications through to finalization and now reside in Canada as permanent residents. While some of Mr. Bharowal’s conduct was unbecoming, he did in fact perform some of the work for which he was retained. He took two of the complainants to the border to flagpole and made an overseas application for a work permit for the third one.”
According to the Canada Border Services Agency, flagpoling is when temporary residents of Canada leave the country and immediately re-enter within 24 hours to receive same-day immigration services at the border.
Bharowal made a successful application to the High Commission in New Delhi for a work permit for one of his former clients, identified only by the initials J.S.
That client paid Bharowal $38,700 for his services.
Out of that, Bharowal paid $1,125 in government application fees. He had charged J.S. $5,000 to stick-handle the client’s work and permanent residency applications.
“However, according to J.S., he eventually left his exploitive employment and received his permanent resident status in 2021 with the assistance of new immigration counsel,” said the decision. “Nevertheless, given that the government application fees were paid by (Bharowal), the panel makes the assumption that (Bharowal) did submit the (permanent residency) application and was therefore entitled to collect the full $5,000 fee as per the retainer agreement.”
The panel pegged the restitution Bharowal should pay J.S. at $32,475.
In a second case, Bharowal helped another client, dubbed Jt.S., make a successful “flagpole trip to the port-of-entry to make a work permit application,” said the decision.
Jt.S. paid Bharowal $2,000 for assistance with that work permit application.
“The college submits that this panel should order restitution from (Bharowal) in the amount of $38,700. However, the evidence does not support that Jt.S. ever paid such amount to Mr. Bharowal. In fact, the evidence indicates that, other than the aforementioned $2,000, Jt.S. paid all fees to a different (immigration consultant), Hartar Singh Sohi. Notwithstanding bad conduct, the panel does not order (Bharowal) to pay back money that he didn’t receive.”
A client identified only as G.S.D. paid Bharowal a total of $39,000, said the decision. “For restitution, the amounts paid for the initial consultation ($100), the visitor extension application ($500) and services related to the work permit application performed under the retainer agreement ($2,000) should be deducted and therefore the amount of restitution to be paid by (Bharowal) is $36,400.”
In a seperate decision, the college’s discipline committee ordered Sohi to pay restitution to Jt.S. in the amount of $38,700 and to G.S.D. in the amount of $39,000.
“In this case, the college submits that Mr. Bharowal and Mr. Sohi should be held responsible, jointly and severally, for all payments of restitution. Furthermore, the college’s submissions argue that the complainants should not enjoy a ‘double recovery’ in that they should not recover from both licensees in excess of what they paid.”
While the discipline panel found that solution “problematic,” it ordered Bharowal and Sohi to pay G.S.D. a total of $36,400 in restitution. “Mr. Bharowal and Mr. Sohi may work it out between them about the amounts each will pay to satisfy this order, ensuring there is no double recovery.”
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.